From my perspective keeping people working in unneeded jobs is the actual evil.
The issue here is mostly with the age old hyperrealism humans operated under, as a group. Truth works (at least worked) worse. The way reality was shaped had a clear productivity purpose, which one can argue is for a greater good (of the group). At the same time, this meant we took a road which might have very well landed us on a local maxima, and now it's quite hard getting down from it. We do not know how, as a group.
So we arrive at such funny situations, where the Pope is low key signaling people who have the power to, should come up with a new story to avoid chaos and pain, but disguised as "truth". Or signaling that humans cannot coexist without being busy working, since they've been pretty much bred into it across the ages, and they cannot function if this suddenly stops. Small groups might, but large scale it's bound to get ugly. But he calls this unemployment thing "evil", which in a sense isn't wrong, there's a serious risk of evil manifesting as a side effect of that, sure.
So keeping them busy is mostly a need to deal with the side effect of breeding humans into working units, across the ages. Evil if you don't, evil if you do.
I guess my point is that we do not know how to interact without it being need based, fundamentally. Because we and the environment selected for this. And the core issue here is we will stop needing eachother, basically, and we don't know what to do at that point. I mean as a group.
Edit: To add a bit more, one must understand that religion developed to consider as many as possible, everyone, and make it work. Fitting everyone and extracting value. Large scale pragmatism. Where techies are optimizing down, doing most with least possible people. The incentives are at odds, in this regard.
And neither of these two perspectives look great for us a group.
>The delayed-choice quantum eraser wasn’t carried out experimentally until 1999, so I think it’s a bit misleading to say this is what makes the double-slit experiment (first carried out with matter in 1927) so weird.
I think Sabine is right, the weirdest thing in the quantum eraser experiment is still the FTL update of the wavefunction.
If gas was free for EU, we'd still pay more than US for it, by the sheer amount of taxes. 25-30% of current price is gas cost itself, raw cost, the rest is taxes.
So if EU somehow magically got the same amount of gas for 100% free, we'd at most pay some 25% less than we do now, and it would still be more expensive than US.
But that's tax. Which makes my point.
If we ever had (almost) free electricity breakthrough we'd still pay relatively the same for it. Energy is one of the most important aspects and they'll never just give it away for free, regardless of how much it costs them. Why would they? They know we need it and they know how much we're willing to pay for it.
Yeah I never really believed in biological aliens here. But some kind of alien AI thing/tech...quite probable after all this time.
Still not sure as there's still a lot of things that can stop it, but it's possible some kind of synthetic thing could replace biology, eventually, everywhere where there's intelligent life.
Not really. Galaxy is 100k ly across, you can make the journey end to end in 1mil years at 10% light speed. Obviously talking about probes/tech, not "biologicals".
1mil years is really short in the grand scheme of things.
The issue here is mostly with the age old hyperrealism humans operated under, as a group. Truth works (at least worked) worse. The way reality was shaped had a clear productivity purpose, which one can argue is for a greater good (of the group). At the same time, this meant we took a road which might have very well landed us on a local maxima, and now it's quite hard getting down from it. We do not know how, as a group.
So we arrive at such funny situations, where the Pope is low key signaling people who have the power to, should come up with a new story to avoid chaos and pain, but disguised as "truth". Or signaling that humans cannot coexist without being busy working, since they've been pretty much bred into it across the ages, and they cannot function if this suddenly stops. Small groups might, but large scale it's bound to get ugly. But he calls this unemployment thing "evil", which in a sense isn't wrong, there's a serious risk of evil manifesting as a side effect of that, sure.
So keeping them busy is mostly a need to deal with the side effect of breeding humans into working units, across the ages. Evil if you don't, evil if you do.
I guess my point is that we do not know how to interact without it being need based, fundamentally. Because we and the environment selected for this. And the core issue here is we will stop needing eachother, basically, and we don't know what to do at that point. I mean as a group.
Edit: To add a bit more, one must understand that religion developed to consider as many as possible, everyone, and make it work. Fitting everyone and extracting value. Large scale pragmatism. Where techies are optimizing down, doing most with least possible people. The incentives are at odds, in this regard.
And neither of these two perspectives look great for us a group.